New September 11th Conspiracy Video...

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Ok, since you obviously can't even do the smallest bit of your own research, the Salomon Brothers Building IS WTC 7. They're the SAME building dude. Here, you need a link?

New York City Sky Scrapers

Scroll all the way down to the bottom.

Furthermore, you can't give proof it's not real. it's so stupid to assert it's not real. How is it not real? Are those reporters fake then? Are they robots or something? Is the footage digitally edited and mix matched from other shows? I really don't understand your argument on this one, I guess because it doesn't make any sense.

The only time it is acknowledged verbally that WTC7 has fallen is when it's not in the screen, nice bit of video editing nothing more.

 

[chal7ds]

The only time it is acknowledged verbally that WTC7 has fallen is when it's not in the screen, nice bit of video editing nothing more.

:rofl

do you enjoy being dumb? because when i read this answer, it made me feel like my intelligence dropped to the level of a mentally retarded, handicapped dmv worker.

blah blah blah blah blah..it's edited..blah blah blah blah...that's all you *******s can ever come up with when you can't face the pain-staking truth.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

:rofl

do you enjoy being dumb? because when i read this answer, it made me feel like my intelligence dropped to the level of a mentally retarded, handicapped dmv worker.

blah blah blah blah blah..it's edited..blah blah blah blah...that's all you *******s can ever come up with when you can't face the pain-staking truth.

The painstaking truth is that the BBC is in on the conspiracy? Surely you can provide some sort of evidence that this is the original un-edited version of the tape? You stil haven't answered the question of why the time that is always on bbc broadcasts was digitally edited out of the video, the obvious answer of why is because it would prove that this is an edited tape.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Hmm, it would seem that for some reason this tape was updated on February 18th the very same day that BBC ran a scorching documentary in regards to the 9-11 conpiracy freaks:

There's lots of room for confusion here as everyone (including Richard Porter of the BBC it would seem) is now basing what they think on what's either associated with the 'original' BBC WORLD (GMT) 41 minute source file which was at www.archive.org, or the clip (allegedly) from BBC NEWS 24 which seems to have a BST (+5 EDT) time stamp on its banner and was put up on the web later in the week (one being the Alex Jones site).

Yes GMT is +4 EDT and EDT is the time *associated* with the 41 minute BBC WORLD file which was available at www.archive.org until mid week (and may be coming back). The problem is the word 'associated' as there's reason to believe that an .xml file at the www.archive.org site was edited on 18 February (which was coincidentally? the day that the BBC 911 Conspiracy episode was broadcast). That file is 'associated' with the actual downloadable file 1GB file called V08591-16.mpg but the 1GB file itself contains no time stamp or any other source identifying or authenticating information.

In the absence of the BBC being able to authenticate the BBC WORLD 41 minute clip's time of broadcast (and other 'live' characteristics against other copies), everyone is inferring its characteritics (including Richard Porter it would seem) when what we really needed was provenance given the unusual circumstances and history. It may well be genuine and untampered with, as may the BBC NEWS 24, but as there's at least motive to discredit the BBC in the wake of their 18th February 911 Conspiracy episode and as there have been some odd goings on at www.archive.org in recent weeks (including the moving of servers, files that should not have been downloadable being downloadable, etc etc - see discussion http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=106772), there's nothing to be lost by being cautious, and attempting to get the BBC and INTERNET ARCHIVE to forensically confirm the authenticity of both clips.

The British 9/11 Truth Campaign :: View topic - BBC World reported WTC7 collapse before it happened

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

SAD FILM!
Bush did a great job of finding out :comp: very soon who the terriorist were. 17 Of the 19 hijackers were from S Arabia and Osama Bin Laden masterminded 911.

Ok! Now Bush does the right thing going after Osama and his gang in Afgan.

Now just think back about all we saw and the people that were killed on 911.
So with that in mind how could Bush desert Osama and his gang to invade IRAQ???
Sad that Bush forgot so fast all about 911, the dead people and who he said was responsible for 911---Osama and his gang.
Bush 2001: We will not rest until Osama is captured.
Bush 2003: Osama is not a priority right now!

God have mercy on :liar2 Bush!!!: The :cowboy: from Conn.

:2usflag: GOD BLESS AMERICA!:2usflag:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

SAD FILM!
Bush did a great job of finding out :comp: very soon who the terriorist were. 17 Of the 19 hijackers were from S Arabia and Osama Bin Laden masterminded 911.

Ok! Now Bush does the right thing going after Osama and his gang in Afgan.

Now just think back about all we saw and the people that were killed on 911.
So with that in mind how could Bush desert Osama and his gang to invade IRAQ???
Sad that Bush forgot so fast all about 911, the dead people and who he said was responsible for 911---Osama and his gang.
Bush 2001: We will not rest until Osama is captured.
Bush 2003: Osama is not a priority right now!

God have mercy on :liar2 Bush!!!: The :cowboy: from Conn.

:2usflag: GOD BLESS AMERICA!:2usflag:

He said that Osama wasn't a priority because like the 2006 NIE says the leadership of AQ has been cut off and dessimated, as to abandoning Afghanistan, I wasn't aware that we withdrew our troops, when did this happen?

 

[ashurbanipal]

Hmm, it would seem that for some reason this tape was updated on February 18th the very same day that BBC ran a scorching documentary in regards to the 9-11 conpiracy freaks:

There's no way that changing an xml file would alter the content of any associated mpg file (or any associated file, for that matter). So that being said, if the reporter is saying that building 7 has collapsed when it's standing behind her in a live shot, this is essentially meaningless. xml files are updated by automatic processes all the time.

Furthermore, matched with the OEM/ Giuliani admission of foreknowledge that the building was coming down, the most reasonable explanation is that the video is authentic, that someone had foreknowledge, and they gave that knowledge (accidentally or not) to the BBC.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Lachean and J2M,

I will be replying to your questions/ posts later today or tomorrow. I am writing some extended posts, but must now see to some other mundane affairs.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

There's no way that changing an xml file would alter the content of any associated mpg file (or any associated file, for that matter).

The XML file is the only one that verifies the time, why was it updated coincedently on the 18th?

So that being said, if the reporter is saying that building 7 has collapsed when it's standing behind her in a live shot, this is essentially meaningless.

She never says that, it only appears in the easily edited text on the bottom of the screen, infact the only time they say that it has collapsed verbally is when WTC7 is not in the shot. And why exactly has someone taken it upon themselves to edit out the time that usually appears in BBC broadcasts? The only reason I can think of is to cover up a clever editing job.

xml files are updated by automatic processes all the time.

Furthermore, matched with the OEM/ Giuliani admission of foreknowledge that the building was coming down, the most reasonable explanation is that the video is authentic, that someone had foreknowledge, and they gave that knowledge (accidentally or not) to the BBC.

So because they thought that a building, which had a 10-story gash on the south facade, extending a third across the face of the building, and approximately a quarter of the way into the interior combined with a raging inferno in a building which was designed in such a way that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space, was going to collapse is proof that the tape is authentic?

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

He said that Osama wasn't a priority because like the 2006 NIE says the leadership of AQ has been cut off and dessimated, as to abandoning Afghanistan, I wasn't aware that we withdrew our troops, when did this happen?

_______
Bush did leave some troops there but as we now know that wasn't enough as the Al-Queda are all rebuilt now. Most of the troops that were in Afgainestan were sent into Iraq.
I do have to say that Bush did continue to send men after Osama.
However those four men on 2 camels haven't had any luck so far finding Osama.

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

As far as all the BS about explosions going on near or in the bottom of the Towers, you just have to look at the way the building came down. From the "TOP."
The same thing happened in Canada when when a building collapsed from the top down.
And I just don't see any problem with the 9 seconds it took come down.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

_______
Bush did leave some troops there but as we now know that wasn't enough as the Al-Queda are all rebuilt now. Most of the troops that were in Afgainestan were sent into Iraq.

Prove that troops were diverted to Iraq that otherwise would have been sent to Afghanistan, this is a baseless assertion propagated by the left who somehow feels they are above providing proof to back up their bullshit claims. For them if it feels true it must be true, regardless of the facts, how's the saying go again? Ah yes, "while facts might change your opinions will never change no matter what the facts are."

I do have to say that Bush did continue to send men after Osama.
However those four men on 2 camels haven't had any luck so far finding Osama.

Bla bla (insert anti-Bush statement here) bla bla bla.

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

Prove that troops were diverted to Iraq that otherwise would have been sent to Afghanistan, this is a baseless assertion propagated by the left who somehow feels they are above providing proof to back up their bullshit claims. For them if it feels true it must be true, regardless of the facts, how's the saying go again? Ah yes, "while facts might change your opinions will never change no matter what the facts are."
________
I didn't say that we diverted troops to Iraq. I said that most of our troops that were in Afg. were sent to Iraq.
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington, "The Guardian."
Bush Feb 16, 2007: Bush wants to increase the number of our troops in Afg. by adding 3,000 more of our troops bringing the total number of our troops in Afg. to 27,000.
I am sure that you will agree that we had more than 24,000 troops in Afg. when Bush invaded them.



Bla bla (insert anti-Bush statement here) bla bla bla.

Well yes! I shouldn't have said 2 camels and 4 men. I should have said 4 camels with 8 men.

 

[angry farmer]

CAUTION: THIS WRITING CONTAINS FACTS, SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS, LOGIC, AND REASON. INTELLIGENT DISCRETION ADVISED TO SHEEP MINDED VIEWERS.

It is beyond controversy, at least to the few who are mentally conscious, that 9/11 was an orchestrated attack by an international cabal consisting of government officials and private persons. The fairy tale told by the monopolistic media and the U.S. government that Islamic terrorists with box cutters were the culprits who highjacked the commercial airliners and attacked America does not align itself with the evidence of the event. Because it is extremely difficulty to deprogram the highly conditioned populace, I will only make a few statements regarding the facts and evidence that contradict the “official fairy tale.”

1. REGARDING THE TOWERS

Standing at 110 stories high the Twin Towers were predominantly made of steel and concrete and specifically designed to withstand an impact of a commercial airliner.

Fairy Tale
The impact of the airliner ignited and fueled the fires, which subsequently weakened the steel frames causing a pancake effect.

Fact
The Twin Towers fell at a free fall rate. This obvious fact disqualifies the pancake theory, if the Towers fell in a pancake like manner there would have been slight interruption between the collapsing of floors.

Fact
Immediately following the collapse of the Towers, clouds of dust formed. It is not possible for concrete to become powder-like by the force gravity; there is no way in hell. There was an enormous amount of dust from the concrete flowing outward and the only force I know of that can break slabs of concrete into a powder is the force of explosions. It is a matter of simple physics.

2. REGARDING THE IDENTITY OF THE TERRORITS

Fairy Tale
Passports identifying the terrorists were found in the aftermath

Truth
Some of the terrorists identified by the government are actually still alive. The identities allegedly found were stolen identities; the people whose identities belonged to publicly came forth to clear their good name.

3. REGARDING FAA

Fairy Tale
Miscommunications, failures, etc. are reasons why the planes were not intercepted.

Truth
How convenient. There was more than ample time to intercept the highjacked planes with fighter jets; after all, it is protocol.

4. REGARDING OSAMA BIN LADEN

Fairy Tale
Osama Bin Laden confessed to orchestrating the 9/11

Truth
Osama Bin Laden has released statements denying any involvement. The tapes released by the CIA were obviously fake.

 

[chal7ds]

:2razz:

great points!

here's another one you need too:

FICTION:
The timecode on the BBC video is not there, meaning the video was tampered with.

FACT:
It doesn't matter that the timecode is missing, because the video obviously shows in REAL TIME building 7 behind the reporter who is at the same time, reporting that Building 7 has collapsed, which it obviously hasn't. It is located directly behind her. Those are obviously window panes in a high-rise building of which she is reporting in.

 

[Narph]

Question:How many of you guys who are saying that this was not possible actually watched the video?

 

[chal7ds]

just to update, they recently released more BBC footage that shows Jane Standley reporting later in the evening, which shows the same window behind her that was shown during the daytime revealing the fact that these ridiculous claims that the video is rigged or blue-screened are all complete fabrications made up by the truth deniers. Her audio is also cutout when they ask her about WTC 7, just as it was cut out when they asked her about WTC 7 earlier in the day. Coincidence? I think not.